Langer v. Mattress Firm, Inc.

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7 CHRIS LANGER, Case No. 20-cv-06516-KAW 8 Plaintiff,

ORDER REQUIRING JOINT STATUS 9 v. REPORT; VACATING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

10 MATTRESS FIRM, INC.,

Re: Dkt. No. 21

11 Defendant. a 12

13 On July 27, 2021, the parties filed their case management conference statement,' in which v 14 || they stated that they “anticipate finalizing the terms of the [Settlement] Agreement within 30 ©

2 ays. t. No. 21 at 6.) Accordingly, the Court the August 3, case 15 || days.” (Dkt. No. 21 at 6.) Accordingly, the C VACATES the A 3, 2021 Q 16 || management conference and ORDERS the parties to file a joint status report as to the status of || settlement by September 2, 2021.

18 IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 || Dated: July 29, 2021 :

20 ak A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge 25 ' The Court notes that Defendant stated that it did not consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction in the case management conference statement. (Dkt. No. 21 at 6.) Plaintiff and Defendant || Previously filed consents to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Dkt. Nos. 5, 13.) Once all parties have consented, there is no absolute right to withdraw that consent. See Dixon v. Yist, 990 F.2d 478, || 480 (th Cir. 1993). Rather, the referral to a magistrate judge can only be vacated by the court “for good cause shown on its own motion, or under extraordinary circumstance shown by any 2g || party.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(4). No such extraordinary circumstances have been articulated by Defendant.